Owner-brokered knowledge sharing machine

ABSTRACT

The invention discloses a system and method for promoting information or knowledge sharing among users registered to a computer network by allowing an information or knowledge owner to locate or directly access private information, to publish information for direct access by knowledge requestors, or to broker information or knowledge with an information or knowledge requestor. This invention also discloses a system and method which allow an organization to develop and manage a reward system based on the frequency of an information or knowledge owner&#39;s contribution to information or knowledge sharing and the frequency of an information or knowledge requestor&#39;s use of shared knowledge.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a divisional application of U.S. Ser. No.10/520,269, with an International Filing Date of Oct. 24, 2003, which isa National Phase filing of PCT/US03/34021, filed on Oct. 24, 2003, whichclaims priority to the U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No.60/421,274 filed on Oct. 25, 2002, all of which are hereby incorporatedby reference in their entirety and for all purposes.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

This invention generally relates to information sharing and managementtechnology. More particularly, the invention relates to a system andmethod for promoting information or knowledge sharing among usersregistered to a computer network by allowing an information or knowledgeowner to locate or directly access private information, to publishinformation for direct access by information or knowledge requestors, orto broker information or knowledge with an information or knowledgerequestor. This invention also relates to a system and method whichallow an organization to develop and manage a reward system based on thefrequency of an information or knowledge owner's contribution toinformation or knowledge sharing and the frequency of an information orknowledge requestor's use of shared knowledge.

2. Related Art

A statement as to the general structure of knowledge sharing andmanagement systems can summarize the problem with such systems today.These systems are generally designed to “manage” knowledge rather thandynamically share it. As such, these systems are often called “knowledgemanagement systems” and are built to manage a body of information thatis collected from individuals within a group or organization. In mostcases, the group or organization has some shared domain ofresponsibility or expertise. The management of the knowledge isgenerally focused around the central body of information. Software andbusiness processes have been designed to facilitate the posting ofinformation or knowledge objects in digital format to and retrieval fromthe central body of information, or central knowledge repository. Boththe posting and retrieval of information have benefited by theassociation of descriptive contextual information, or meta-data, aboutthe data stored in such a system. In addition, the security of andappropriate access to the information have benefited from software andbusiness practices designed to manage rules, roles, and accessprivileges. The use of Internet technologies has enhanced theshare-ability of digitized knowledge by collapsing barriers of time andgeography.

The premise that brought about these types of centralized knowledgemanagement systems is that some people are knowledge creators (or“knowledge leaders” or “knowledge owners” or “expertise providers”) andhave information that would be useful one or more times to otherpotential users (“knowledge seekers” or “knowledge requestors”) of theinformation who could be granted access to the information. I call thisthe “big bucket approach”. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the big bucketapproach assumes that users who voluntarily contribute their knowledgeor information content to the big bucket can also retrieve informationfrom the bucket. Essentially, information is obtained either directly orindirectly from the knowledge creators and stored in the centralknowledge repository for the knowledge seekers to locate and utilize inthe ordinary course of creating work products. The primary objectivesfor these systems are to have the most relevant and most currentinformation available at all times. A variety of incentive compensationsystems have been incorporated along with this approach to encourage theongoing and continuous population and maintenance of the knowledgerepository so that the big bucket is full of imminently locatable,useful information.

Systems utilizing the population and updating of the information en mass(“top down”) from central sources such as fileservers, Web pages, etc.or individually by capturing data at the point of origination orutilization (“bottom up”), such as within email systems or in localend-user computer files have been designed.

Similar to the Marxist-Leninist social system, which did not work, bigbucket information communism doesn't work well either. The problem withsystems employing the big bucket approach is that they do noteffectively take into account the human bias not to share informationoutside of the context of a trust-based relationship. The reality withsuch systems, as illustrated in FIG. 1B, is that the central bucket isempty relative to the actual digital information that is maintained orpossessed directly by the knowledge creators. Extending the bucketmetaphor, one can say that the reality is that the distributedindividual buckets populated and maintained by individual knowledgeowners is where the bulk of actual knowledge desired for a sharingsystem resides.

What is desired is a multi-domain framework that takes into account,facilitates, and maximizes the access and sharing of knowledge withinthe context of a trust-based relationship.

What is further desired is an incentive mechanism incorporated with themulti-domain framework to encourage the users to share their workproducts or other knowledge objects in their possession.

What is further desired is a security mechanism incorporated with themulti-domain framework to ensure privacy and to promote knowledge accessand sharing within the context of a trust-based relationship.

What is further desired is an instant message platform incorporated withthe multi-domain framework to enable a knowledge owner to provide aknowledge requestor with advice, comments, and substitution of requestedresource in a real time manner.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to the present invention, a multi-domain framework forpromoting the sharing of knowledge within a group or organization isprovided which overcomes the problems of prior art methods discussedabove. The invention encourages knowledge discovery and sharing bycreating a system that allows knowledge owners to easily search theirown private repositories of information, to publish information fordirect access by knowledge seekers or requestors, or to brokerinformation with knowledge seekers or requestors.

The system for sharing knowledge objects among the registered users ofthe computer network includes a central knowledge repository and anumber of distributed knowledge repositories, each of which isassociated with a specific user.

The central knowledge object repository is used for maintaining andupdating a collection of published knowledge objects contributed by theusers. Any of the users can access any of the published knowledgeobjects directly by entering a unique user identification, so long asappropriate access privileges have been granted.

The central knowledge object repository is also used for maintaining andupdating a collection of listed knowledge objects contributed by theusers. Any of the listed knowledge objects can be identified, throughthe metadata associated with each individual object, but cannot beaccessed by any of the users other than the user who contributed thelisted knowledge object unless the user who contributed the listedknowledge object authorizes the proposed access.

The collection of listed knowledge objects includes all the listedknowledge objects that exist in all the distributed knowledgerepositories.

In the preferred embodiment, the system also includes a mechanism toreward both knowledge-owners and knowledge-requestors for sharinginformation. This mechanism effectively and for the first time alignsorganizational incentives for promoting the sharing and re-use ofknowledge with the desire of individuals, based on human nature tomanage their digitized personal knowledge closely and to share it withinthe context of a trust-based relationship.

This invention has numerous real-world applications across industriesand organizational structures, and can essentially be used any timepeople can benefit from sharing knowledge. These include but are notlimited to collaboration in the following industries and organizationalstructures:

-   -   general business (e.g. email-based, owner-brokered document,        contact, and file sharing);    -   manufacturing (e.g. collaborative design across any distance or        spanning companies);    -   software development (e.g. source code sharing, testing, bug        tracking, information security);    -   scientific research (e.g. research methods or results sharing);    -   academic learning (e.g. course material publishing, research        results sharing, distance learning);    -   military (e.g. intelligence gathering, anti-espionage);    -   financial (e.g. research publishing, research data gathering);    -   medical (e.g. clinical trials, patient record/clinical case        sharing); and    -   community (e.g. contact sharing amongst groups, photo-sharing).

The foregoing has outlined rather broadly, the more pertinent andimportant features of the present invention. The detailed description ofthe invention that follows is offered so that the present contributionto the art can be more fully appreciated.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more succinct understanding of the nature and objects of thepresent invention, reference should be directed to the followingdetailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawingsin which:

FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B are schematic diagrams illustrating the prior artapproaches;

FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B are schematic diagrams illustrating the solutionaccording to the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating a network equipped with aknowledge sharing system according to the invention;

FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a local computer environmentwherein the knowledge sharing system according to the inventionoperates;

FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram illustrating a system forowner-brokered knowledge sharing according to the preferred embodimentof the invention; and

FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating the relationship between thedomain of listed (identifiable but unpublished) knowledge objects andthe domain of the published knowledge objects;

FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for accessing publishedknowledge objects;

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for owner-brokeredknowledge sharing;

FIGS. 9-11 are flow diagrams illustrating a multi-domain process forsharing knowledge objects among the users of a computer network; and

FIGS. 12-17 are flow diagrams illustrating a variant process comprisinga comprehensive, multi-domain system for sharing knowledge objects andtracking utilization among the users of a computer network.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

With reference to the drawings, the present invention will now bedescribed in detail with regard for the best mode and the preferredembodiments. In its most general form, the present invention comprises aprogram storage medium readable by a computer, tangibly embodying aprogram of instructions executable by the computer to perform the stepsnecessary to provide a framework, as it is schematically illustrated inFIG. 2A and FIG. 2B, in which knowledge creators can broker informationwith knowledge seekers and both the knowledge creators and the knowledgeseekers can be rewarded for sharing information.

FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating a network including at leasttwo users who constitute a networked community in which a user can beeither a knowledge owner (KO) or a knowledge requestor (KR). A user,such as user 120, communicates with other users, such as user 150, usinga software application that supports a graphical interface 110. A server160 provides the knowledge sharing service over the network 140 such asLAN, WAN or the Internet.

The local computer environment wherein the preferred embodiment of thisinvention operates, as it is illustrated in FIG. 4, includes a computerplatform 121, which includes a hardware unit 122 and an operating system123. The hardware unit 122 includes at least one central processing unit(CPU) 124, a read only random access memory (usually called ROM) 125 forstoring application programs, a write/read random access memory (usuallycalled RAM) 126 available for the application programs' operations, andan input/output (10) interface 127. Various peripheral components areconnected to the computer platform 121, such as a data storage device128, a terminal 129 and a network connection interface 131 such asEthernet or Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI). The user uses abrowser 131 or a similar application to log on the network. Theknowledge sharing application 130, which supports the graphical userinterface 110 in FIG. 3, runs on the computer platform 121. Thoseskilled in the art will readily understand that the invention may beimplemented within other systems without fundamental changes.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a system 200 for owner-brokeredknowledge sharing according to the preferred embodiment of theinvention. The system includes at least one knowledge requestor (KR) 120who initiates a request for information at any time and at least oneknowledge owner (KO) 150 who is able to provide information in the formof knowledge objects that are of interest to any KR 120. There is atleast one knowledge object 261 associated with each KO 150, which is aunit of analog, digital or digitized information or work product createdin the ordinary course of business activity by the KO 150. Both theknowledge owner 150 and the knowledge KR 120 have a distributedknowledge object repository (DKOR), such as DKOR 220 or DKOR 260, whichis an individual or personal or private knowledge object repository thatstores electronic files, emails, contacts, or other knowledge objects.The distributed knowledge object repository is user-specific. One usercannot access another's knowledge object repository, however, thecontent in each user's knowledge object repository is searchable orindexable by a non-human agent such as a software application running onthe system.

The system 200 also includes a central knowledge object repository(CKOR) 202, which is a central body of digital information which can bedeployed as a software application run on the server 160 (see FIG. 3) orstored in a database or managed through peer-to-peer technology toappear as a central body of information to the users of the system. Inthe preferred embodiment, the central knowledge object repository (CKOR)202 is part of the knowledge sharing application, called knowledgesharing machine (KSM) 201.

KSM 201 runs on the server 160 in FIG. 3 or through the virtualcombination of connected machines using peer-to-peer technology toappear as a central body of information to the users of the system, andincludes the user interface 110, shown in FIG. 3, through which usersaccess information. The KSM 201 manages both the CKOR 202 and the DKORs220 and 260. A unique characteristic of the KSM 201 is that it maintainsthe continually updated and current directory or index of the contentsof the CKOR 202 and the DKORs 220 and 260, which can be described as thecollective body of information. The KSM 201, through its various modulesand interfaces, facilitates access to and management of knowledgeobjects based on the type, classification, or domain of information thatis stored.

The system 200 comprises the entirety of the system, including the humanand system supported processes defined, as well as the operational,administrative, measuring, rewards tracking, and reporting softwarecomponents managed by the KSM 201.

FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating the categorization of theknowledge flowing in the system of FIG. 5. The knowledge is classified“listed” 301 and “published” 302. “Listed” information 301 in thisapplication is defined as knowledge objects (such as documents, emails,contacts, etc.) that are indexed at either the meta-data or full-textlevel from within DKORs 220/260. In particular, a listed knowledgeobject means a knowledge object that is listed in, and known to, the KSM201 but which has not yet been published to all users of the system. Theknowledge objects are owned, or created and updated in the ordinarycourse of business communications by the KO 150 but they have not beenpublished or approved by the KO 150 for direct access through the KSM201. Access to listed information 301 is managed through a knowledgebrokering process which requires the consent of the KO 150 beforeknowledge objects visible to the KSM 201 from within the DKOR 260 willbe made available for evaluation of or delivery to the KR 120.

“Published knowledge” 302 is defined as information that has beenauthorized by the KO 150 for direct access through the KSM 201 aftereither passing through the knowledge brokerage process at all or throughdirect submission by the KO 150 to the CKOR 202. Published informationcan be shared on a subscription basis so that subsequent revisions andupdates to the information can be automatically delivered to theknowledge KR 120 in the future.

The Correlation Index (“CI”), which is used in the system, is acomparison means to indicate the degree of correlation between a requestand a knowledge object as represented by the objects data or the dataabout the object (meta-data). In the case of published information 302,the correlation can be as high as 100% because the information isavailable to the knowledge requestor 120 directly from the CKOR 202without human broker interaction. In the case of listed information 301,because the CKOR 202 is a system and not a person, the KSM 201 canidentify a very high CI between the request and the result but will notshow a 100% correlation. The KO 150, which is the human broker of listedinformation 301, must be the ultimate determinant of correlation.

The system 200 also includes a comparison measure, referred to as aRelationship Index (“RI”), which is a measure of the strength of arelationship as defined by aggregate interactions (phone, email,meetings) between one person and another. This can be applied to datathat is sought by a KR 120. For example, contact data for a salesprospect may reside in more than one DKOR and the KR 120 may want toidentify the person within the organization with the strongestrelationship with the prospect, in order to obtain the most completeunderstanding of the prospect's interaction history the organization.This can also be applied to the trust-based relationship that candevelop within the KSM 201 between a KR 120 and a KO 150 by measuringsearches and approved retrievals of information over time.

The system 200 also includes a knowledge sharing reward tracking module,which is used to track the number of requests for, and the subsequentdelivery of, listed or published information from the KO 150 to the KR120 through the knowledge brokering process or through the automatedpublishing process. In particular, the tracking module may be configuredto track: the number of times that a user discloses a private knowledgeobject from his private domain to the domain of listed but unpublishedknowledge objects; the number of times that a user authorizes otherusers' access to an unpublished knowledge object; the number of timesthat a user publishes a knowledge object, either from his private domainor from the unpublished domain, to the published domain; the number oftimes that a published knowledge object is used by the users other thanthe user who contributed the published knowledge object; and the numberof times that a user requests and uses the knowledge objects originatedfrom other users. The tracked information will be used within acompensation system to reward users, such as employees, for sharingknowledge.

FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a process for accessing publishedknowledge objects according to the preferred embodiment. The methodincludes, but is not limited to, the following human or system supportedsteps:

Step 51: A knowledge requestor (KR) initiates a search request forinformation, which could be an outline, a brief, a sample letter, areport, an email, or even a person's contact information including ahistory of interactions with a contact.

Step 52: Upon receipt of the request, the knowledge sharing machine(KSM) compares the request against the information stored in the CKORand the DKORs.

Step 53: The KSM returns a set of relevant results, which is one or moreresults that are correlated with the request, to the KR in a ranked formshowing the highest level of correlation between the request and theresult set, including both published and listed information (knowledgeobjects). In the preferred embodiment, a correlation ranking indicatoris associated with each returned result so that the user can identifythe most relevant result conveniently and accurately.Step 54: The KR evaluates the result set and determines if anyinformation returned by the KSM is in the published domain.Step 55: IF the KR decides to obtain the published information, THEN theKR can access the information directly from the CKOR through the KSM solong as the person has appropriate access privileges (departmental,title/role/responsibility, etc.).Step 56: ELSE IF a piece of listed information is sought by the KR, THENthe KR must access the information from the KO through the knowledgebrokering process as illustrated in FIG. 8.

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating a knowledge brokering process,which comprises the steps of:

Step 61: Via the software user interface, the KR instructs the KSM tosend the request along with the associated (by the KSM) individualknowledge object result or results from the result set to the KO. Therequest includes the statement that the KR is looking for a knowledgeobject from the domain of the listed information and that the KSM hasdetermined that a knowledge object in the KO's DKOR has a specifiedcorrelation or likelihood of being the information sought. In thepreferred embodiment, the request is a message automatically generatedby the system in response to the KR's command, such as a single click,to send the request to a KO. Also, in the preferred embodiment, thesystem can be configured so that a request cannot be forwarded to a KOuntil the search request is sufficiently specific so that it yields afinite, manageable set of results.Step 62: The KO receives and evaluates the request and the result setfrom the KSM.Step 63: The KO decides whether to share the information or not.Step 64: IF the KO does not agree to share the information with the KR,THEN the KSM sends the KR a notice stating, for example, “Sorry! Yourrequest cannot be completed”. Since the KSM is a machine and does notspecify a 100% correlation, the end result and non-delivery ofinformation could be interpreted to mean that the KO simply did not havethe information that the KSM thought it did.Step 65: IF the KO agrees to share the information with the KR, then theKSM delivers the information to the KR over the network.Step 66: Optionally, the KSM generates a message and delivers it to theKO to ask the KO whether this information is of a nature that should bepublished so that it will be available to other people with appropriateaccess privileges through the publishing process.Step 67: The KO makes a decision on the KSM's prompt message.Step 68: IF the KO declines to publish, THEN returns the KSM with a “NO”message and the information is not published. In other words, althoughthe KO agrees to share it with this specific KR in this specific time,the KO still wants to maintain his privilege to decline the next KR'srequest.Step 69: IF the KO agrees to publish, THEN returns the KSM with a “YES”message and the KSM publishes the information in the published domain.

In all cases where the knowledge sharing reward tracking module 70 isenabled, the KSM tracks the number of requests for and subsequentdelivery of listed or published information from the KO to the KRthrough the knowledge brokering process or through the automatedpublishing process. The tracked information will be used within acompensation system to reward members of the system for sharingknowledge.

Note that the comparison matching for data about items, events, or ideas(Correlation Index) and the comparison matching for people or contacts(Relationship Index) use the best available techniques such ascontext-based matching, neural networks, Bayesian classification, linearand non-linear classification, keyword matching, etc.

In the event that KO wants to remain anonymous, he can simply set theoption by selecting from a dropdown list or clicking an icon.

FIGS. 9-11 are flow diagrams illustrating a multi-domain process forauser using the KSM system described above. Assuming the user hasconfigured the KSM to index all of his local files, e-mails and contactson his computer, the process includes the following steps:

Step 81: Initiate a search. In order to complete a task, the user who isassociated with the network initiates a search for information in alocal client application interface of the KSM system by specifying andentering a keyword search criteria or a more advanced single field/valueor multi-filed/values search criteria.

The graphical user interface of the KSM provides a number of searchoptions, each of which is represented by a virtual button or other kindof icon. For example, the user may select “local domain search”,“published domain search”, “brokered domain search”, or “search entiredomains”.

Step 82: If the local domain is specified, search the local domain.

For each user of the system, the local domain includes the user'sdigital information objects in the form of files, emails, contactrecords, and other digital representation of information, whether on alocal machine or elsewhere on the network. The user has direct access tosearch the information through the system using core operating systemdirectory structures and file-by-file contents search or through thesystem using a data index or meta-data system index representing theinformation and optimized for efficient searching. Note that the usercan specify which digital information objects or collections of objectsin the form of directories, connected systems, or other repositoriesthat are searchable.

Step 83: Check whether any object, such as a document, contact or email,matches the search query.

Step 84: If the check result in Step 83 is yes, return to the user alist of matching objects.

Step 85: The user examines the returned results and decides whether ornot to further search the published domain or the brokered domain.

Step 86: If the check result in Step 83 is no, prompt the user to revisethe query.

Step 87: If the user decides to revise the query, repeat Step 81.

Step 88: If the user does not want to revise the query, prompt the userto further search the published domain or the brokered domain.

Step 89: Search the published domain if the user chooses so and continueon Step 83.

For each user of the system, the published domain includes thecollective digital information objects in the form of files, emails,contact records and other digital representations of information,whether on local machines or on the network, which have been madeavailable by the primary holders or originators of the information fordirect access by other individual users of the system. Individual usersof the system have direct access to search the collective digitalinformation through the system using core operating system directorystructures and file-by-file contents search or through the system usinga data index or meta-data index representing the information andoptimized for efficient searching. Individual users of the system canspecify which digital information objects or collections of objects inthe form of directories, connected systems or other repositories aresearchable and accessible directly by other users of the system. Primaryholders of the information can specify access rights and privilegesgranted to other users.

Step 90: Search the brokered domain if the user chooses so and continueon Step 91 in FIG. 9.

For each user of the system, the brokered domain includes the collectivedigital information objects in the form of files, emails, contactrecords and other digital representations of information, whether onlocal machines or on the network, which have been made available by theprimary holders or originators of the information for indirect access byother individual users of the system.

Individual users of the system have indirect access to search thecollective digital information through the system using core systemdirectory structures and file-by-file contents search or through thesystem using a data index or meta-data index representing theinformation and optimized for efficient searching. The system isdesigned to identify and rank order individual users of the system aspotential information providers and to facilitate the sharing ofinformation between individual users. No user or system administratorshall be able to view this information directly because that wouldundermine the trust and privacy basis inherent in the system.

Individual users of the system can specify which digital informationobjects or collection of objects in the form of directories, connectedsystems or other repositories are searchable and accessible indirectlyby other users of the system. Primary holders or originators of theinformation can specify access rights and privileges granted to otherusers. In a brokered sharing scenario, the process enables the holder ofinformation who has been identified to another user of the system, bythe system, as a likely provider of the information to make the finaldetermination as to whether or not the information is shared.

Step 91: Check whether any object, such as document, contact or emailsin the brokered domain matches the search query.

Step 92: If the check result in Step 91 is yes, return to the user alist of matching objects, which are based on a central meta-data indexof all documents accessible to the system. The results enable the systemto present a ranked listing of all other users of the system that appearto be the holders of documents matching the search criteria. Thedisplayed results, specifying the degree of the correlation (or “core”)and presented in descending order, for example, are the names of theother users of the system that appear to be the most likely able toprovide information to accomplish the task.Step 93: The user examines the returned results to determine if at leastone of the individuals has a sufficiently high correlation score towarrant continuing the process and involving another user in order tocomplete the task requirement.Step 94: The user or knowledge requester (KR) decides whether to involveanother user or knowledge owner (KO).Step 95: If yes, the system forwards the search criteria to the KO.Step 96: The system, on behalf of the KR, specifies the specificinformation objects which matched the search criteria privately to theKO as well as the search criteria originally entered by the KR.Step 97: The KO evaluates the KR's request and the system specifiedinformation objects to determine relevancy.Step 98: The KO decides whether to be involved.Step 99: If yes, the KO decides whether the system determined matchinginformation objects are relevant to the task implied by the KR's request(query).Step 100: The KO selects one or more most relevant object(s).Step 101: Optionally, the KO may add notes, such as comments orinstructions concerning the use of the selected object(s).Step 102: The KO authorizes to deliver the selected objects attachedwith his notes.Step 103: The KR receives the delivered copies of the informationobjects and the KO's notes. At the same time, the system generates amessage and delivers it to the KO to ask the KO whether this informationis of a nature that should be published so that it will be available toother people with appropriate access privileges through the publishingprocess. This is same as the situation in Step 66-70 described above.Step 104: Optionally, if in Step 99 the KO thinks that the targetedinformation objects do not fit the KR's needs, the system may prompt theKO to provide substitution(s) or make a suggestion or provide commentsvia an instant messaging interface which is part of the KSM's graphicaluser interface.Step 105: If the KO is willing to, he may make a suggestion such asselecting a relevant substitution object from his repository andoffering to the KR.

FIGS. 12-17 are flow diagrams illustrating a variant process from thatillustrated in FIGS. 9-11 and comprising a comprehensive, multi-domainsystem for sharing knowledge objects and tracking utilization among theusers of a computer network. The user (KR) initiates a search (401) byselecting a search domain (403, 406 and 410). First, assume that the KRmakes a local domain search. The KR is returned the search results,which are all local or private documents, contacts, and emails thatmatch the search criteria (402). The KR examines the results (405) todetermine if one or more meet the task requirement (407). If yes, the KRutilizes the individual information objects to complete the task (411).If no, the KR modifies the search criteria and repeats the local searchor expands the domains being searched to include the published orbrokered domains (409, 406).

When a published domain search is conducted, the KR is returned theresults, which are all published documents, contacts, and emails thatmatch the search criteria and can be accessed directly (404). Then, theKR examines the results (408) if one or more meet the task requirement(412). If yes, the KR utilizes the individual information objects tocomplete the task (413). If no, the KR modifies the search criteria andrepeats the published search or expands the domains being searched toinclude the brokered domain (414).

When a brokered domain search is initiated (415), the system firstchecks whether access boundaries exists (416). If yes, the systemincorporates boundary constraints into the search parameters, such asallowing inbound brokered requests from requestors defined by topic,group, organizational role or level, or requestors on a “white list”such as those who are represented in acknowledge holder'scontact/address folder (417). If no access boundaries exist or afterstep 417, the KR is returned the results which are based on a centralmeta-data index of all documents accessible to the system (418). Theresults enable the system to present a prioritized list of the knowledgeowners (KOs) that appear to be the holders of documents matching thesearch criteria. The displayed results, specifying the degree ofcorrelation (or correlation index “score”) and presented in descendingorder, are names of the other users of the system that appear to be themost likely able to provide information to accomplish the task. Then,the KR examines the results to determine if at least one of the otherusers of the system has a sufficiently high correlation score to warrantcontinuing the process and involving the other user(s) in order tocomplete the task requirement (419). Optionally, the system may promptthe KR whether to continue with a request (420). If yes, the KRinstructs the system to forward the search criteria to the other user(422). The system, on behalf of the KR, specifies the specificinformation objects that matched the search criteria privately to theother user (KO) as well as the search criteria originally entered by theKR (423). When the KO receives the request, he needs to decide whetherhe wants to assist (424). If no, a message is sent to the KR indicatingthat the system was unable to find any appropriate knowledge objectmatching the search request (425). No reasoning or disposition isrequired from the user KO. If the KO wants to help the KR, the KOevaluates that the system generated matching information objects (426)to determine which are the best suited for the task implied by the queryinput by the KR (427) or if a substitution is required (428). If thereexist one or more appropriate results, the KO selects the specificobjects that are best suited for the task (429). If no, the KO maysubstitute other objects (428).

After step 428 or step 429, the KO may be prompted whether he wants toadd additional objects (430). If no, the KO marks the request complete(432). If yes, the KO inserts one or more appropriate objects (431). TheKR receives the completed request (433) and the system asks the KO if hewants to make the information object(s), which was shared in thepreceding process step, directly available to other users and thereforebypassing the brokering process for these objects in subsequent searches(434, 435). If yes, the knowledge object(s) are copied or moved to thecentral repository (436). This is the equivalent of “publishing” theobject(s). Optionally, it will be also decided whether to track metrics(437). For the purpose of rewards-based compensation or other process orindividual user performance measures, the system will incrementallytabulate the number of times a user publishes information objects foruse by other users and requests information objects from other users(438). Through these measures, the system can aid in the determinationof which users are most actively sharing information and also whichinformation objects are most commonly requested.

Note that in the steps of maintaining and updating a collection oflisted knowledge objects, the list is a compilation of individualmetadata “records” or compilations of data about data that correspond tothe knowledge objects. The system includes a database of metadatarecords that describe the private knowledge objects that are in thecontrol of the knowledge owners.

All participants in the system can access the list and therefore becomeaware of the “likely” holders of the information objects that they areseeking. Typically, a user does not know exactly what will bereceived—and therefore the system relies on and requires the humanintervention and sorting of the potentially relevant objects to sendback what is truly useful. The private repositories can exist on a localmachine, or virtually anywhere, so long as they are available to theknowledge owner who is the person that grants access to them andfacilitates their subsequent delivery to the knowledge seeker.

The system allows the users to set metadata at a folder level (like anemail or desktop folder) and also to assign to that folder some rules.For example, a first user might have an email folder called patent thatis automatically published and for which the access rights are set toonly allow a second user to see the files. Whenever the first user dragsan email to that folder, it is moved to the server and then the seconduser could find it in a search for “published”.

In a typical employment, the server of the system manages the access to,and central storage of, the published records. It also manages thecentral list (index) of individual metadata records about privateknowledge objects. It may further manage the various rewards-trackingmetrics and their subsequent aggregation/reporting/dissemination. Moreimportantly, the server is omniscient. No user can know what individualusers have in their private repository.

If an object is changed from private to published, it gets moved to theCKOR. If it is changed from published to private, the metadata record isstill managed by the server but the actual knowledge object is no longerdirectly accessible. The object, from that point on, resides within thecontrol of the knowledge owner (in the DKOR).

In this system, a user must be able to search the user's localrepository (“My Computer”), the central repository of directlyaccessible information (“Published”), and the distributed,request-shared repositories as represented by the central list(“Brokered”). The system wouldn't work if any part was missing, becausethe three concentric circles are what make it work. A car works becauseit has wheels, an engine, and a steering mechanism. A knowledge sharingsystems works when it has these three things.

The system has a unique way for publishing to be linked with brokering.Once a brokered request is completed, a sharer may decide that theinformation shared was not worth keeping so privately. The user can thenjust mark it as published and it gets moved to the central repository ofdirectly accessible information.

When an object changes from “published” to brokered, the system removesthe object from the central repository of directly accessibleinformation and retains the metadata describing the object in thecentral repository index, or list.

Also note that the list, and the way the list is structured, can containboth items that are derived directly from the objects themselves(keywords) and also by the knowledge owner that imbues the knowledgewith additional descriptive data so that it can be found. The list ofavailable descriptive criteria or “tags” can be from a standardizedtaxonomy. In other words, the system according to this invention allowsmetadata to be specified by a user to in a standard taxonomy foruser-assigned, essentially a central vocabulary, and to be automaticallyassigned by the system as it gathers metadata from emails, etc.

The user-defined taxonomy is maintained on the server via a browser. Theuser can edit standard taxonomy metadata within their own documents ifthe server is set to allow such editing. In some deployments, the userscan even add new types/classifying criteria choices to the centralstandard taxonomy.

The invention described above has numerous real-world applicationsacross industries and organizational structures, and can essentially beused any time when people can benefit from sharing knowledge. Theseinclude but are not limited to collaboration in the following industriesand organizational structures:

-   -   general business (e.g. email-based, owner-brokered document,        contact, and file sharing);    -   manufacturing (e.g. collaborative design across any distance or        spanning companies);    -   software development (e.g. source code sharing, testing, bug        tracking, information security);    -   scientific research (e.g. research methods or results sharing);    -   academic learning (e.g. course material publishing, research        results sharing, distance learning);    -   military (e.g. intelligence gathering, anti-espionage);    -   financial (e.g. research publishing, research data gathering);    -   medical (e.g. clinical trials, patient record/clinical case        sharing); and    -   community (e.g. contact sharing amongst groups, photo-sharing).

Although the invention is described herein with reference to thepreferred embodiment, one skilled in the art will readily appreciatethat other applications may be substituted for those set forth hereinwithout departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.

Accordingly, the invention should only be limited by the Claims includedbelow.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A system for sharing knowledge objectsamong registered users of a computer network, the system comprising: ameans for managing a collection of private knowledge objects, wherein auser has access to any of the user's private knowledge objects directly;a means for managing a collection of published knowledge objectscontributed by one or more users, wherein any user has access to any ofthe published knowledge objects; and a means for managing a collectionof listed knowledge objects contributed by one or more users, whereinthe collection of listed knowledge objects is searchable, but wherein alisted knowledge object is inaccessible to any user other than the userwho contributed the listed knowledge object unless the user whocontributed the listed knowledge object authorizes the proposed access;a means for changing a private knowledge object into a listed knowledgeobject, wherein said private knowledge object is neither identified noraccessed by any of the users other than the user who possesses theprivate knowledge object; and a means for publishing a private knowledgeobject or a listed knowledge object as a published, directly accessibleknowledge object; and wherein a search further returns a list of usersranked based on the likelihood of possession of knowledge relevant tothe search.
 2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a means fortracking any of: the number of times a user discloses a privateknowledge object as a listed knowledge object; the number of times auser authorizes other users' access to a listed knowledge object; thenumber of times a user publishes knowledge objects; the number of timesa published knowledge object is utilized by the users other than theuser who contributed the published knowledge object; and the number oftimes a user utilizes knowledge objects originating from other users;wherein said numbers are used in determining a reward to the user forthe user's involvement in knowledge sharing.
 3. The system of claim 1,wherein a user searches for a knowledge object by any of: entering aquery; and navigating one or more directories.
 4. A method for sharingknowledge objects among registered users of a computer network, themethod comprising the steps of: managing a collection of privateknowledge objects, wherein a user has access to any of the user'sprivate knowledge objects directly; managing a collection of publishedknowledge objects contributed by one or more users, wherein any userhaving been granted permission has access to any of the publishedknowledge objects; managing a collection of listed knowledge objectscontributed by one or more users, wherein the collection of listedknowledge objects is searchable, but wherein a listed knowledge objectis inaccessible to any user other than the user who contributed thelisted knowledge object unless the user who contributed the listedknowledge object authorizes the proposed access; and returning, inresponse to a search, a list of users ranked based on the likelihood ofhaving contributed a listed knowledge object relevant to the search; andchanging a private knowledge object into a listed knowledge object,wherein said private knowledge object is neither identified nor accessedby any of the users other than the user who possesses the privateknowledge object; and publishing a private knowledge object or a listedknowledge object as a published knowledge object.
 5. The method of claim4, further comprising any step of: tracking the number of times a userdiscloses a private knowledge object as a listed knowledge object;tracking the number of times a user authorizes other users' access to alisted knowledge object; tracking the number of times a user publishesknowledge objects; tracking the number of times a published knowledgeobject is utilized by the users other than the user who contributed thepublished knowledge object; and tracking the number of times a userutilizes knowledge objects originating from other users; wherein saidnumbers are used in determining a reward to the user for the user'sinvolvement in knowledge sharing.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein auser searches for a knowledge object by any of: entering a query; andnavigating one or more directories.
 7. A system for sharing knowledgeobjects among registered users of a computer network, the systemcomprising: a processor; and a computer readable storage mediumcomprising computer readable instructions for: managing a collection ofprivate knowledge objects, wherein a user has access to any of theuser's private knowledge objects directly; managing access to acollection of published knowledge objects contributed by one or moreusers, wherein any user having been granted permission has access to anyof the published knowledge objects; and managing access to a collectionof listed knowledge objects contributed by one or more users, whereinthe collection of listed knowledge objects is searchable, but wherein alisted knowledge object is inaccessible to any user other than the userwho contributed the listed knowledge object unless the user whocontributed the listed knowledge object authorizes the proposed access;changing a private knowledge object into a listed knowledge object,wherein said private knowledge object is neither identified nor accessedby any of the users other than the user who possesses the privateknowledge object; and publishing a private knowledge object or a listedknowledge object as a published, directly accessible knowledge object;and wherein a search further returns a list of users ranked based on thelikelihood of possession of knowledge relevant to the search.
 8. Thesystem of claim 7, further comprising instructions for tracking any of:the number of times a user discloses a private knowledge object as alisted knowledge object; the number of times a user authorizes otherusers' access to a listed knowledge object; the number of times a userpublishes knowledge objects; the number of times a published knowledgeobject is utilized by the users other than the user who contributed thepublished knowledge object; and the number of times a user utilizesknowledge objects originating from other users; wherein said numbers areused in determining a reward to the user for the user's involvement inknowledge sharing.
 9. The system of claim 7, wherein a user searches fora knowledge object by any of: entering a query; and navigating one ormore directories.
 10. A computer-implemented method for sharingknowledge objects among registered users of a computer network, themethod comprising: managing a collection of private knowledge objects,wherein a user has access to any of the user's private knowledge objectsdirectly; managing a collection of published knowledge objectscontributed by one or more users, wherein any user having been grantedpermission has access to any of the published knowledge objects; andmanaging a collection of listed knowledge objects contributed by one ormore users, wherein the collection of listed knowledge objects issearchable, but wherein a listed knowledge object is inaccessible to anyuser other than the user who contributed the listed knowledge objectunless the user who contributed the listed knowledge object authorizesthe proposed access; changing a private knowledge object into a listedknowledge object, wherein said private knowledge object is neitheridentified nor accessed by any of the users other than the user whopossesses the private knowledge object; and publishing a privateknowledge object or a listed knowledge object as a published knowledgeobject; and wherein a search further returns a list of users rankedbased on the likelihood of possession of knowledge relevant to thesearch.
 11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, furthercomprising any of: tracking the number of times a user discloses aprivate knowledge object as a listed knowledge object; tracking thenumber of times a user authorizes other users' access to a listedknowledge object; tracking the number of times a user publishesknowledge objects; tracking the number of times a published knowledgeobject is utilized by the users other than the user who contributed thepublished knowledge object; and tracking the number of times a userutilizes knowledge objects originating from other users; wherein saidnumbers are used in determining a reward to the user for the user'sinvolvement in knowledge sharing.
 12. The computer-implemented method ofclaim 10, wherein a user searches for a knowledge object by any of:entering a query; and navigating one or more directories.
 13. Anon-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computerreadable instructions for sharing knowledge objects among registeredusers of a computer network, the instructions for: managing a collectionof private knowledge objects, wherein a user has access to any of theuser's private knowledge objects directly; managing access to acollection of published knowledge objects contributed by one or moreusers, wherein any user has access to any of the published knowledgeobjects; and managing access to a collection of listed knowledge objectscontributed by one or more users, wherein the collection of listedknowledge objects is searchable, but wherein a listed knowledge objectis inaccessible to any user other than the user who contributed thelisted knowledge object unless the user who contributed the listedknowledge object authorizes the proposed access; changing a privateknowledge object into a listed knowledge object, wherein said privateknowledge object is neither identified nor accessed by any of the usersother than the user who possesses the private knowledge object; andpublishing a private knowledge object or a listed knowledge object as apublished, directly accessible knowledge object; and wherein a searchfurther returns a list of users ranked based on the likelihood ofpossession of knowledge relevant to the search.
 14. The non-transitorycomputer readable storage medium of claim 13 further comprisinginstructions for tracking any of: the number of times a user discloses aprivate knowledge object as a listed knowledge object; the number oftimes a user authorizes other users' access to a listed knowledgeobject; the number of times a user publishes knowledge objects; thenumber of times a published knowledge object is utilized by the usersother than the user who contributed the published knowledge object; andthe number of times a user utilizes knowledge objects originating fromother users; wherein said numbers are used in determining a reward tothe user for the user's involvement in knowledge sharing.
 15. Thenon-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein auser searches for a knowledge object by any of: entering a query; andnavigating one or more directories.